No mention in the essay about Dubya allowing Cheney and the Neocons to use 9/11 as one of pretextual justifications to invade Iraq, the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the United States. The Iraq War resulted in the needless slaughter and physical and psychological maiming of hundreds of thousands, eliminated Iraq as the only counter weight to Iran, and destabilized the Middle East for the foreseeable future. No mention that California courts have initiated criminal prosecutions against ANTIFA members (I know of such cases in Alameda and Sacramento counties). No discussion of tRump's Nationalism that is fueled by fear, hate and ignorance. In other words, another opinion piece based on Fox & Friends bullet points.

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside

No mention in the essay about Dubya allowing Cheney and the Neocons to use 9/11 as one of pretextual justifications to invade Iraq, the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the United States. The Iraq War resulted in the needless slaughter and physical and psychological maiming of hundreds of thousands, eliminated Iraq as the only counter weight to Iran, and destabilized the Middle East for the foreseeable future. No mention that California courts have initiated criminal prosecutions against ANTIFA members (I know of such cases in Alameda and Sacramento counties). No discussion of tRump's Nationalism that is fueled by fear, hate and ignorance. In other words, another opinion piece based on Fox & Friends bullet points.

I should tell you that I pray for Trump because he believes in America. He wants an America that is true to its founding ideals of liberty and free enterprise. I also pray for him because he's been the victim of the most consistent, slimiest hate campaign since Abraham Lincoln. He hasn't done anything seriously wrong, and yet the media powers treat him as if he were John Wilkes Booth.

Other than constantly lie, attempt to subvert an independent investigation into his campaign and administration, prop up dictators while hurting alliances, and grift for his own profit, no he's done nothing seriously wrong.

Other than constantly lie, attempt to subvert an independent investigation into his campaign and administration, prop up dictators while hurting alliances, and grift for his own profit, no he's done nothing seriously wrong.

If given a longer leash, he'd do plenty. Don't doubt it for a nanosecond!! He's done more than enough to warrant the short leash, if not impeachment or the 25th amendment. Get this clown out of office!

No mention in the essay about Dubya allowing Cheney and the Neocons to use 9/11 as one of pretextual justifications to invade Iraq, the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the United States. The Iraq War resulted in the needless slaughter and physical and psychological maiming of hundreds of thousands, eliminated Iraq as the only counter weight to Iran, and destabilized the Middle East for the foreseeable future. No mention that California courts have initiated criminal prosecutions against ANTIFA members (I know of such cases in Alameda and Sacramento counties). No discussion of tRump's Nationalism that is fueled by fear, hate and ignorance. In other words, another opinion piece based on Fox & Friends bullet points.

And we're still spending loads of money on these needless wars.

[regardless of political party in WH or holding majorities in congress]

While not an endorsement of an war in particular, it's odd to me that in many cases American (liberals) want dictators overthrown, and other times they object, with little consistency in their declarations. Iraq had one of the worst.

I honestly don't know what should be the line in the sand as far as the US intervening on behalf of citizens of another country under the hand of a killing machine.

...I honestly don't know what should be the line in the sand as far as the US intervening on behalf of citizens of another country under the hand of a killing machine.

How is this line in the sand: Don't overthrow a dictator that poses no risk to US national security; don't overthrow a dictator when his Iron Fist was the only thing keeping the incompatible ethnic groups and religious sects in the country from slaughtering each other; don't overthrow a dictator when the altruistic invading force has no workable plan for governing the newly liberated country; and don't overthrow a dictator when he was the driving force that was keeping a state sponsor of international terrorism from becoming the preeminent Power in the region

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside

...I honestly don't know what should be the line in the sand as far as the US intervening on behalf of citizens of another country under the hand of a killing machine.

How is this line in the sand: Don't overthrow a dictator that poses no risk to US national security; don't overthrow a dictator when his Iron Fist was the only thing keeping the incompatible ethnic groups and religious sects in the country from slaughtering each other; don't overthrow a dictator when the altruistic invading force has no workable plan for governing the newly liberated country; and don't overthrow a dictator when he was the driving force that was keeping a state sponsor of international terrorism from becoming the preeminent Power in the region

That would be the strategic, foreign relations-type strategy.

The Left in particular likes to play the moral high ground strategy. This is of course problematic because it is implicit endorsement of military action (up to and including invasion and temporary occupation). There are lots of dictators doing awful things (by western liberal standards).

The argument to stay away because a dictator's brutal killings of his own people was a strategic counterweight to an adversary like Iran is highly AMORAL.

(Again, I agree with you here more than I disagree, but I'm saying some folks can't have it both ways).

Why is it amoral not to remove a dictator when to do so increases the bloodshed? Democracy does not work in all corners of the earth. When you have a tribal society it may be that only the Strong Man can keep the peace. I don't think the US has a moral duty to be the world's policeman, but the issue becomes more complex when the misconduct rises to the level of genocide and we have the ability to stop it. Our failure to stop the Rwandan genocide never settled well with me. Clearly there are a lot of grey areas short of genocide.

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside

After 9/11, neighborhoods throughout America flew the flag. First responders, especially police and firefighters, were hailed as heroes. President George W. Bush, often demeaned by the mainstream media, seemed to be given a grace period as he provided symbolic unity to the idea of America.Eighteen years later, the same first responders, some dying of cancer from exposure on that fateful day, had to beg Congress to continue their health benefits.

His statement "George W. Bush, often demeaned by the mainstream media" is typical of the entire piece...The Right is good, under siege, etc. The Left is evil, misled etc. (I dislike the term "The Left", but it's best I can do at the moment) .

If anyone can find anything remotely positive said about those not on The Right, please point it out,

This statement is left hanging without any attribution of "good" or "evil".

Eighteen years later, the same first responders, some dying of cancer from exposure on that fateful day, had to beg Congress to continue their health benefits.

Why? Because the following does not fit his narrative. That is sad in so many ways.

...I honestly don't know what should be the line in the sand as far as the US intervening on behalf of citizens of another country under the hand of a killing machine.

How is this line in the sand: Don't overthrow a dictator that poses no risk to US national security; don't overthrow a dictator when his Iron Fist was the only thing keeping the incompatible ethnic groups and religious sects in the country from slaughtering each other; don't overthrow a dictator when the altruistic invading force has no workable plan for governing the newly liberated country; and don't overthrow a dictator when he was the driving force that was keeping a state sponsor of international terrorism from becoming the preeminent Power in the region

That would be the strategic, foreign relations-type strategy.

The Left in particular likes to play the moral high ground strategy. This is of course problematic because it is implicit endorsement of military action (up to and including invasion and temporary occupation). There are lots of dictators doing awful things (by western liberal standards).

The argument to stay away because a dictator's brutal killings of his own people was a strategic counterweight to an adversary like Iran is highly AMORAL.

(Again, I agree with you here more than I disagree, but I'm saying some folks can't have it both ways).

While not an endorsement of an war in particular, it's odd to me that in many cases American (liberals) want dictators overthrown, and other times they object, with little consistency in their declarations. Iraq had one of the worst.

Are these all the same people? Who are they?

Liberals and/or "The Left" are not a monolithic group. Different factions exist, some more anti-war than others. Honestly, if they were more monolithic they'd probably be better at winning elections.

While not an endorsement of an war in particular, it's odd to me that in many cases American (liberals) want dictators overthrown, and other times they object, with little consistency in their declarations. Iraq had one of the worst.

Are these all the same people? Who are they?

Liberals and/or "The Left" are not a monolithic group. Different factions exist, some more anti-war than others. Honestly, if they were more monolithic they'd probably be better at winning elections.

I'm talking specifically about those that have contradicting positions on foreign intervention as a moral imperative (to intervene or not intervene)

I wasn't taking a position on any general or specific foreign policy perspective. I'm criticizing *only* those who will, for example, implore the U.S. to intervene under an asserted pretense of human rights violations in a specific case but then lament the U.S. for doing just that under the same pretense (moral duty) in another case (e.g. Iraq).

While not an endorsement of an war in particular, it's odd to me that in many cases American (liberals) want dictators overthrown, and other times they object, with little consistency in their declarations. Iraq had one of the worst.

Are these all the same people? Who are they?

Liberals and/or "The Left" are not a monolithic group. Different factions exist, some more anti-war than others. Honestly, if they were more monolithic they'd probably be better at winning elections.

I'm talking specifically about those that have contradicting positions on foreign intervention as a moral imperative (to intervene or not intervene)

I wasn't taking a position on any general or specific foreign policy perspective. I'm criticizing *only* those who will, for example, implore the U.S. to intervene under an asserted pretense of human rights violations in a specific case but then lament the U.S. for doing just that under the same pretense (moral duty) in another case (e.g. Iraq).

" ... in many cases American (liberals) want dictators overthrown, and other times they object, with little consistency in their declarations."

"The Left in particular likes to play the moral high ground strategy"

Take off the partisan blinders and look at schools of IR thought instead. It'll be less tiresome for the rest of us

I wasn't taking a position on any general or specific foreign policy perspective. I'm criticizing *only* those who will, for example, implore the U.S. to intervene under an asserted pretense of human rights violations in a specific case but then lament the U.S. for doing just that under the same pretense (moral duty) in another case (e.g. Iraq).

" ... in many cases American (liberals) want dictators overthrown, and other times they object, with little consistency in their declarations."

"The Left in particular likes to play the moral high ground strategy"

Take off the partisan blinders and look at schools of IR thought instead. It'll be less tiresome for the rest of us

I'm not taking a position on IR here, merely on logical consistency, so the claim of partisanship is poppycock.

While not an endorsement of an war in particular, it's odd to me that in many cases American (liberals) want dictators overthrown, and other times they object, with little consistency in their declarations. Iraq had one of the worst.

Are these all the same people? Who are they?

Liberals and/or "The Left" are not a monolithic group. Different factions exist, some more anti-war than others. Honestly, if they were more monolithic they'd probably be better at winning elections.

I'm talking specifically about those that have contradicting positions on foreign intervention as a moral imperative (to intervene or not intervene)

So who are they?

e.g. those who supported strikes on Syria but morally postured about Iraq.

I wasn't taking a position on any general or specific foreign policy perspective. I'm criticizing *only* those who will, for example, implore the U.S. to intervene under an asserted pretense of human rights violations in a specific case but then lament the U.S. for doing just that under the same pretense (moral duty) in another case (e.g. Iraq).

" ... in many cases American (liberals) want dictators overthrown, and other times they object, with little consistency in their declarations."

"The Left in particular likes to play the moral high ground strategy"

Take off the partisan blinders and look at schools of IR thought instead. It'll be less tiresome for the rest of us

I'm not taking a position on IR here, merely on logical consistency, so the claim of partisanship is poppycock.

If you take of your ****ing partisan blinders, you might find that there's no logical inconsistency. IR is based on different fundamental questions and principles than political theory. Partisan labels don't apply, but you insist on using them. It's tiresome. But then again, abject partisans are the tiresomest people anyway